You're almost there Robert. You realize that left & right use authoritarianism near equally to control and to sustain power over others. Now we just have to separate you from the notion that authoritarianism is a conservative concept.

If we stop and take a look at the animal kingdom, we will see packs, prides, etcetera of animals and that conformity to the behavior of the group is as natural as life itself.

When the masses rally behind a Chavez, Hitler, Mao or Lenin we see fine examples of a chain reaction of mass conformity.

This desire to fit in can be exploited by those who have as their motivations the dual spurs of fear and companionship.

Authoritarianism is simply exploitation of these universal human traits. To classify it as conservative makes no sense. It's not conservative, its a human character trait.

When folks of either left or right gather - there will be leaders and followers. The leaders will exploit the needs and desires of the followers.

To sustain their position they must provide for the welfare of their followers (insert pride or pack if you wish) and when they fail to do so will be challenged by another in their pack who has a taste for power/control over the others - another human trait.

Evolution would lead to a world full of leader-types and no followers. The USA generally has shown that this is the mindset of many who seek freedom. Devolution leads to more followers and fewer leaders.

A leader is more evolved than a follower because they have somewhat evolved past their need to conform or fit in. They have overcome fear and acted to stake out their own claim.

Authoritarianism, therefore, can be seen to be the natural state of existence between leaders and followers in any group.

You see now, why Dean is barking up the wrong tree? He limits his observations to a small subset of the masses and fails to address the primal underpinnings of authoritarian human relationships between leader-types and follower-types in any group of people.

Here on the HZ you have leaders and followers, but a preponderance of leader types that create clashes. If there was just one leader the place could become like DKOS or DU, where the followers ALL conform to the beat of the leader and dissent is expelled and extinguished immediately, much like a murderous pack of thieves who kill off anyone who may betray them.

That's the truth. Authority is both seized and given by the parts of any group.

To paint this relationship as "conservative" is a deliberate misnomer when it is more accurately, "fundamental".